Surveyor's Report Holds Evidentiary Value, Can't Be Disregarded Without Valid Reasons: Madhya Pradesh State Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) held that a surveyor's report in insurance claims holds significant evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded without valid reasons. Subsequently, the bench dismissed an appeal against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, as it had already...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) held that a surveyor's report in insurance claims holds significant evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded without valid reasons. Subsequently, the bench dismissed an appeal against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, as it had already paid the amount determined by the surveyor.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a 'Bolero SLX' manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra (“Mahindra”) from the Bhagwati India Motorized (“Seller”), after obtaining financing. The vehicle was insured with the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Insurance Company”) for the period from 28.04.2015 to 27.04.2016. During the insurance coverage period, on 22.11.2015, the vehicle collided with a divider near Parasia while returning from Chhindwara and sustained damage. The Complainant informed the Insurance Company and handed over the vehicle to Accord Motors (“Dealer”) for repairs. The Dealer provided an estimate of Rs. 2,97,916/- for repairs. The Complainant submitted a claim to the Insurance Company. The complainant incurred Rs. 2,12,050/- on repairs, out of which the Insurance Company only paid a partial amount. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandla, Madhya Pradesh (“District Commission”) against the Seller, the Dealer and the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company stated that as per policy terms and conditions, the amount was paid to the Dealer after assessing the actual loss. The Complainant had recommended the Dealer for repairs. Based on the surveyor's assessment, the Insurance Company paid Rs. 1,50,411/- to the Dealer with the complainant's consent.
In their joint reply, the Dealer and the Seller submitted that the Complainant signed a consent letter upon taking the repaired vehicle, indicating satisfaction with the repairs and no further claims. They argued that the delay was due to the Complainant's lack of interest in collecting the vehicle despite repeated calls.
The District Commission dismissed the complaint based on the fact that the Insurance Company had already paid the assessed amount to the Dealer and the Complainant failed to prove delay on the part of the Insurance Company. Dissatisfied by the decision, the Complainant filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (“State Commission”).
Observations of the Commission:
The State Commission noted that the Complainant had obtained an insurance policy for his vehicle from 28.04.2015 to 27.04.2016. The vehicle met with an accident on 22.11.2015, and the Insurance Company was promptly informed. The Insurance Company immediately appointed a surveyor, who assessed the net loss at Rs. 1,50,411/- in his report dated 17.05.2016. This amount was paid to the Dealer for repairs. The Complainant did not file an FIR, but the Insurance Company still assisted him by appointing a surveyor to assess the loss. The State Commission further emphasized that the surveyor's report holds significant evidentiary value and cannot be ignored without valid reasons.
The State Commission concluded that the Complainant was entitled to the amount assessed by the surveyor, which had already been paid by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Commission was upheld.
Case Title: Alok Khandelwal vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Others
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1303 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Shri Sunil Tiwari
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta (for Iffco Tokio)
Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024